Brexit

[ruffrecords]

OK; if educated means someone who actually went to school, there are not many in most EU countries, but I meant people who, when interviewed, make syntax, grammar and vocabulary mistakes in every other sentence and cannot justify their positions by any sort of logical process. I must admit, news are biased; they show that kind of people in priority.
There are many people who go to school and leave it uneducated.

I don't think we should get too hung up on definitions but I understand what you mean and you inadvertently make my point. The whole point of democracy is it is governance of the people by the people for the people. There is absolutely no qualification for being one of the people other than existing and having achieved a certain age. The basic principle of democracy is that everyone is equal no matter how well educated or informed. Politicians often forget this and think they know what is best for us. That is the root of elitism and it is fundamentally wrong. As a 65 year old who has been voting since before we joined the EU I can tell you there are an awful lot of folk of a similar age who are totally p.....d off with elitism both here and in the EU. The referendum was the first chance we had to express our views  (general elections just let you choose the elite). This feeling is as strong now as it was them.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Matt Nolan]

Ian, I think you are describing a Direct Democracy. We live in a Representative Democracy. The trouble with a Direct Democracy is everyone needs to be very well informed about everything. It is somewhat unmanageable - many would say this was cleary demonstrated by the Referendum vote itself and that was just one single decision!

The idea of a Representative Democracy is that the people elect a small group of people who are supposed to become experts in the things that need decisions and then they make them on our behalf. If we don't like how they do it then we don't vote for them the next time. We are supposed to have an idea on how they will take decisions based on their manifestos when we choose to elect them in the first place.

This also doesn't seem to work too well as evidenced by the past however many decades.

I think we need something more in the middle ground, or a representative democracy with more control over corruption.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't think we should get too hung up on definitions but I understand what you mean and you inadvertently make my point. The whole point of democracy is it is governance of the people by the people for the people. There is absolutely no qualification for being one of the people other than existing and having achieved a certain age. The basic principle of democracy is that everyone is equal no matter how well educated or informed. Politicians often forget this and think they know what is best for us. That is the root of elitism and it is fundamentally wrong. As a 65 year old who has been voting since before we joined the EU I can tell you there are an awful lot of folk of a similar age who are totally p.....d off with elitism both here and in the EU. The referendum was the first chance we had to express our views  (general elections just let you choose the elite). This feeling is as strong now as it was them.

Cheers

Ian

Lynch mobs are a simple "pure" democracy. Referendums are simple democracy and some might wish they were a little more thoughtful about BREXIT but the people have spoken... There are a few science fiction movies about futuristic simple democratic  societies where people vote while watching TV shows (like gladiators but with a larger audience).

The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch. So people elect representatives to parliament to write laws and a prime minister to oversee the people's business, after investigation and deliberation.

I won't arrogantly lecture about your government as most of my recent knowledge comes from google.  Your house of commons is probably similar to our house of representatives which is the lower more responsive or populist body, and your house of lords is probably like our senate, the higher more deliberative body. 

Constitutions are written to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the masses. In a simple democracy small minorities could be unfairly ostracized by the will of the many.

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

I won't arrogantly lecture about your government as most of my recent knowledge comes from google.  Your house of commons is probably similar to our house of representatives which is the lower more responsive or populist body, and your house of lords is probably like our senate, the higher more deliberative body. 
JR

Pretty much spot on. The major difference is the House of Lords is an unelected elite (literally).

Cheers

ian

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I don't think we should get too hung up on definitions but I understand what you mean and you inadvertently make my point. The whole point of democracy is it is governance of the people by the people for the people. There is absolutely no qualification for being one of the people other than existing and having achieved a certain age. The basic principle of democracy is that everyone is equal no matter how well educated or informed. Politicians often forget this and think they know what is best for us. That is the root of elitism and it is fundamentally wrong. As a 65 year old who has been voting since before we joined the EU I can tell you there are an awful lot of folk of a similar age who are totally p.....d off with elitism both here and in the EU. The referendum was the first chance we had to express our views  (general elections just let you choose the elite). This feeling is as strong now as it was them.

Cheers

Ian

If you look at the definitions of democracy, you will note that it is:

• a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting; that implies there is intrinsically a form of "elite"
• an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights; that's a very important point. Even in France, where "Egalité" is at the frontispiece of every town hall, equality is always used with a complement, such as equality of rights, equality of opportunities, equality before justice, never as a whole. As much as I would wish every human being to be as intelligent as Albert E., as good-looking as Robert Redford, as healthy as David Beckham, it's not going to happen.
  This all converges into some being more equal than others.

As to a referendum being a chance to express "our" views, that would be true if there was no propaganda and information was not biased. I would think the views that have been expressed are in majority those of Farrage, Johnson et al.

Now the government drags its feet just to declare its intentions, and everyone is convinced May (and many pro-Leave) would wish she had a magic wand and wake up from this nightmare. It looks like the whole process, if it happens, may take several years, and probably end up in a tepid form of "we're not in it anymore, but we're still in it somehow".
I'm not sure when the people expressed their views, they were imagining this.
It's been recognized that "While the public debate has focused on economic arguments — such as whether an exit would shrink or boost the U.K. economy — experienced pundits suggest voters will be driven by emotions, deciding with their hearts, not their heads.
Among the arguments in favor of Leave, there were immigration contol, "make Britain great again", reject the Brussels bureaucrats, reject what the establishment wants, Lower prices; although points 3 & 4 have been clearly made, we have yet to see the others.
For now this rejection vote seems to be just a steam release, not the announced triumphant democratic revenge.

 

[micaddict]

Although I strongly prefer the first over the latter (and that's an understatement), in some ways democracy (in practice) is more dangerous than dictatorship.
In the latter it' usually more clear who's pulling the strings, who really owns the goodies, and who's manipulating whom.

If you're an ownwer of a company, a good way to keep your workers happy is to install a suggestion box ...

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I'm not advocating any system over another; Churchill made famous the aphorism: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." I guess he did not fully envision how the media and the money powers would hijack and corrupt democracy. Just watch the situation in the USA and France; electors are spoilt for lack of choice. It takes so much money, lying and influence peddling to be a candidate that the only ones that succeed are corrupt.
Democracy has been so mistreated that there are many forms of democracy, some that look like oxymorons, such as theodemocracy, ethnic democracy. There are some jewels like:
Guided democracy – a form of democratic government with increased autocracy where citizens exercise their political rights without meaningfully affecting the government's policies, motives, and goals.
The problem is most people, when they think of democracy, refer to Athenian democracy.
"It was a system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. Participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen who owned land and was not a slave, and the number of these varied between 30,000 and 50,000 out of a total population of around 250,000 to 300,000."
Is that really what they want, women and slaves being excluded from the democratic process?
Many countries seem to develop an attraction for enlightened despotism; certainly many people in Singapore seem to think so, since they have "elected" the son of historic "Lion of Singapore" Lee Kuan Yew as PM.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Pretty much spot on. The major difference is the House of Lords is an unelected elite (literally).

Cheers

ian

Our senators (upper house) used to be appointed by the state legislatures, which gave the states more power in the congress than now. In 1913 the 17 amendment changed that to senators being selected by  popular elections for 6 years terms.

I wouldn't mind going back to the previous way, but more important stuff to fix at the moment. 

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Our senators (upper house) used to be appointed by the state legislatures, which gave the states more power in the congress than now. In 1913 the 17 amendment changed that to senators being selected by  popular elections for 6 years terms.

I wouldn't mind going back to the previous way, but more important stuff to fix at the moment. 

JR

We have vestiges of that. All prime ministers automatically get a seat in the lords when they leave office and it is within the power of the government to 'create' peers to sit there also. This has been used several times in the past to deliberately create a majority in the lords. Other members of the lords (peers) are hereditary.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Our founders studied your government's design, along with all the others and copied the parts they liked. I see similarities, and differences.

FWIW in the early days many wanted to declare George Washington a king. He was such a remarkable leader that he declined. 

JR

 

[sahib]

I do not reject elitism and I would not mind the Lords.  But....

When I was going out with my wife we were invited to her uncle's. He had also invited a couple of his chums one of whom turned out to be a professor of philosophy. The conversation got to morality and I (being young and stupid) tried to be smart with him. This guy tore me apart. Shredded me like scrap paper, sliced me in milimeter accuracy and mashed me up with the soup. That was probably the biggest lesson I have ever learned in my life. Over 30 years it still hurts. Now, here is an intellectual elite. Put this guy into Lords and I'll be his sheep. But what we have in the Lords? Michelle f***** Monet.

 

[ruffrecords]

I do not reject elitism and I would not mind the Lords.  But....

When I was going out with my wife we were invited to her uncle's. He had also invited a couple of his chums one of whom turned out to be a professor of philosophy. The conversation got to morality and I (being young and stupid) tried to be smart with him. This guy tore me apart. Shredded me like scrap paper, sliced me in milimeter accuracy and mashed me up with the soup. That was probably the biggest lesson I have ever learned in my life. Over 30 years it still hurts. Now, here is an intellectual elite. Put this guy into Lords and I'll be his sheep. But what we have in the Lords? Michelle f***** Monet.

I certainly do not reject the intellectual elite - there are some incredible minds out there and we need them. Nor do I reject any other class of elite  people. What I object to is a subset of them being in control of our lives and running things principally for their own benefit.

Cheers

ian

 

[sahib]

I did not mean you did Ian. I am  there with you. Cronyism that makes us all sick.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

What I object to is a subset of them being in control of our lives and running things principally for their own benefit.

It's hard to disagree with you, Ian!
However, it seems to be the way most governments are headed to. I believe the adjective liberal is what corrupts democracy (after all, ANY adjective corrupts democracy).

 

[ruffrecords]

It's hard to disagree with you, Ian!
However, it seems to be the way most governments are headed to. I believe the adjective liberal is what corrupts democracy (after all, ANY adjective corrupts democracy).

LOL.  The problem with voting for a political party is that they are all the same in this respect. The advantage of a referendum is that you are voting for one policy not a party. - in other words voting about what the politicians have actually  done rather than their overall approach to governing the country. It is the only time the people get to express their feelings about the democratic process as a whole. I suspect the UK result is not that unusual.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

It's hard to disagree with you, Ian!
However, it seems to be the way most governments are headed to. I believe the adjective liberal is what corrupts democracy (after all, ANY adjective corrupts democracy).

Here's an interesting thing to wrap our heads around. China a dictatorship has in recent decades raised more people out of abject poverty than anywhere else in the world.

So perhaps somewhat benign, while it may be self serving. The government has gained much international power from this recent economic strength.

JR

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Autocracy, under whatever form, has the advantage of continuity. Many projects dedicated to converting a society take much more time than the meagre years of one or two presidential mandates. Democracies run out of breath with the effects of elections, before, during and after.

 

[ruffrecords]

I don't think any political system is perfect. For every example of a type that works well there is an example where it has not. They all have the potential to work well but all are open to abuse.

Cheers

Ian

 

[DaveP]

While you lot are politely discussing the merits and demerits of various forms of democracy, the Brexit referendum has delivered to my household here in France a 20% pay cut!!

The exchange rate was about 1.3 Euros to the pound, before the vote, it is now 1.1.  My pension is paid in pounds and has to be converted to Euros for our living expenses.

Thank you very much to all the uneducated /misinformed/ or whatever you are, for spoiling my retirement after a lifetimes work and  responsible hard-won contributions to my pension pot.

You wanted to control your borders but have ended up screwing over the million Brits who live in Europe.  If we all have to come back home you will have the biggest housing crisis since the war.

As it is, we have now become bargaining chips against all the EU citizens residing in the UK, I don't think that is going to end well.

DaveP

 

[Matt Nolan]

It would  seem the Brexiteers aren't keen on migrants in any direction!